Standards for Documenting Finite-Fault
Earthquake Rupture Models
by P. Martin Mai, Peter Shearer, Jean-Paul
Ampuero, and Thorne Lay
ABSTRACTIn this article, we propose standards for documenting and disseminating finite-fault earthquake rupture models, and related
data and metadata. A comprehensive documentation of the
rupture models, a detailed description of the data processing
steps, and facilitating the access to the actual data that went
into the earthquake source inversion are required to promotefollow-up research and to ensure interoperability, transparency,
and reproducibility of the published slip-inversion solutions.
We suggest a formatting scheme that describes the kinematic
rupture process in an unambiguous way to support subsequent
research. We also provide guidelines on how to document thedata, metadata, and data processing. The proposed standards
and formats represent a first step to establishing best practices
for comprehensively documenting input and output of finitefault earthquake source studies.

INTRODUCTION
Finite-fault source inversions have become a fundamental seismological tool to estimate the kinematic properties of earthquake
rupture processes. Using seismic ground-motion recordings often
augmented with geodetic and/or tsunami measurements, these
inversions provide models of the space–time evolution of coseismic displacement that occurs on one or more fault segments. The
resulting finite-fault rupture models (also known as slip models)quantify the spatial distribution and direction of slip on the fault,
how fast the rupture expanded over the fault surface, and how
long each point on the fault slipped. If only geodetic static displacements are used, the source inversions can constrain the fault
geometry and static slip distribution (i.e., final displacements overthe fault surfaces), but not the temporal rupture evolution. For
large tsunamigenic earthquakes, tide-gauge records, or deep-waterbuoy recordings of sea-level variation may also be used, exclusively
or in combination with other datasets, to quantify the rupture
process with or without time information.
Kinematic source parameters from finite-fault models(fault-slip magnitude and slip-direction angle, rupture speed,
712

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 87, Number 3

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/87/3/712/2771971/712.pdf
by King Abdullah Univ of Sci Tech Librarian of Kaust user

rise time, and slip-rate function) are extensively utilized as input data for further seismological research, for example, tocompute stress drop on the fault, static coulomb stress changes
on surfaces in the surrounding medium (e.g., Stein, 2003), andstress interactions with postseismic processes (e.g., Ergintav
et al., 2009); to infer dynamic-rupture behavior (e.g., Heaton,
1990; Ide and Takeo, 1997; Tinti et al., 2005; Mai et al., 2006;
Causse et al., 2013), and aspects of rupture nucleation andcomplex propagation properties (e.g., Mai et al., 2005; Gabriel
et al., 2012); to study earthquake mechanics and earthquake
scaling (e.g., Mai and Beroza, 2000; Manighetti et al., 2005;
Strasser et al., 2010); and to develop models that quantify rupture complexity for ground-motion simulations (e.g., Somerville et al., 1999; Mai and Beroza, 2002; Lavallée et al., 2006;
Causse et al., 2010; K. K. S. Thingbaijam and P. M. Mai, unpublished manuscript, 2016, see Data and Resources). Slip distributions also play a role in understanding earthquake
recurrence and aftershock distributions. As such, finite-fault
rupture models provide a valuable resource to investigate andbetter understand earthquake source processes, which ultimately guide improved seismic-hazard analysis.
This contribution to the Electronic Seismologist proposes
standards for documenting and disseminating finite-fault
earthquake rupture models. Comprehensive documentationand timely dissemination of these models facilitates followup research and ensures interoperability, transparency, andreproducibility of the published slip-inversion solutions.
Reproducible research is a key to advancing science in general,and to ensuring the credibility of our work. Recently, there has
been extensive focus on reproducibility of research results, extending across computer science (Mesirov, 2010; Peng, 2011),
medical science (Eddy et al., 2012), and geoscience (Agnew,
2012, 2013; Lees, 2012), including the issue of how to makevaluable scientific data and results accessible (Hanson et al.,2011; Haak et al., 2012). In this context, it is interesting tonote that the Stanford Exploration Project (see Data and Resources) has ensured reproducibility of their research products(Schwab et al., 2000) since 1991 by generating electronic
May/June 2016

doi: 10.1785/0220150204

reproducible documents as their principal means of technology
transfer.
In addition to making the results of finite-fault inversions
available to future users in a standardized format, we proposethat all relevant metadata should also be published and ideallybe made electronically accessible. The key here is to facilitate,
not so much replicability, but rather reproducibility of the scientific work. In the former case, an experiment (inversion) is
conducted under precisely the same conditions at different
times, whereas the latter involves similar, but not identical, experiments (inversions) at different times, in different locations,and under somewhat different conditions (e.g., by different
people, using different algorithms or compilers). To facilitate
this, we advocate that sufficient metadata be provided as part ofany published finite-fault slip model, be it in a journal publication or online.
Furthermore, we propose a formatting scheme that tabulates the kinematic rupture process in an unambiguous way tosupport subsequent scientific use of this data. The existing
SRCMOD database of finite-fault rupture models (see Data
and Resources, Mai and Thingbaijam, 2014) has been compiled by collecting data from individual authors for over a decade, tediously gathering needed metadata to provide at least
the minimum supporting information about the inversion parameterization and the resulting source models. However, there
are many more published rupture models that are not yet available in this database. In other cases, metadata is missing or incomplete, making reproducibility of these studies infeasible. A
common and agreed upon standard for documenting and disseminating finite-fault rupture models will greatly facilitate not
only the expansion and completion of such a global database,
but also future seismological research on earthquake source processes. For instance, numerous rupture models exist for many
earthquakes. Although for some purposes, it may be sufficient
to simply graphically compare these rupture models (e.g., Shearer
and Bürgmann, 2010); in most cases, we would like to quantify
and understand the differences in finite-fault rupture models(Gallovič and Ampuero, 2015; Razafindrakoto et al., 2015) andaddress the issue of quantifying uncertainty in source inversions(Beresnev, 2003; Page et al., 2011; Mai et al., 2016).
Therefore, it should become standard practice for authors
to include files of numerical results, as well as relevant data andmetadata, to allow readers to utilize the published research results for follow-up scientific work. A standardized format for
disseminating models and data will also enable developing
community codes that use formatted inputs for further analysis, which further facilitate transparent and transformative scientific practice, as advocated in this article. In addition, we
encourage authors to facilitate access to time-series data
(and, if applicable, Global Positioning System [GPS] data) suchthat quantitative comparisons (and related figures) can be easily
generated in subsequent studies. Although this requires more
initial effort by the authors, it should reduce repeated individual requests for model descriptions and documentation that
often occur at present. Clearly, this practice would be encouraged if scientific publications embraced some standards inmodel documentation as defined below. However, at the current state of practice in source-modeling documentation, it isimportant to first promote a culture of making these models(and related data and documentation) easily available for further research before attempting to finalize all the details ofwhat ultimately could be provided. Thus, we regard our proposed documentation scheme as a first step to establish an
agreed upon practice and format for documenting finite-fault
earthquake rupture models. The standards and formats proposed here may be revised, updated, and improved subsequently, based on the experience gathered with theproposed schemes below.

DOCUMENTATION OF FINITE-FAULT INVERSIONS
Published slip-inversion models should provide the information
specified in the three sections below, related to documenting themodel, the data, and the method. Although some of this information can be conveniently given in the journal publication itself, it is often advantageous to disseminate large amounts ofdata/tables by means of an electronic supplement or through acommunity database. We encourage authors to supply all of theinformation listed below, where items flagged with an * arestrongly recommended, but not mandatory.
Model Documentation
First, a detailed description of all relevant modeling parameters
should be provided, followed by the exact space–time information of the inferred finite-fault rupture model. In particular:
1. A tabulated model of seismic P and S velocities, density,and attenuation parameters versus depth used to compute
the Green’s functions. This needs to be specified in sufficient detail such that any reader/researcher can retroactively
obtain the assumed Earth structure at any given position. If
applicable, provide site-specific corrections (time/amplitude), or site-specific velocity–density structures.
2. The hypocenter location (latitude, longitude, and depth)
and origin time, as assumed or inferred through the source
inversion process.
3. The geographic locations (latitude, longitude, and depth)of all points on the fault for which unique Green’s functions are computed, and the shear modulus value used ateach point for the calculations. This set of points is often
denser than the set of subfaults that describe the finite-fault
rupture model. If Green’s functions are computed for a dislocation source acting over a small finite-size fault patch,
information as specified below in item (4) should be given.
4. For each subfault: a unique index number, latitude, longitude, and depth of all corners (four for rectangular subfaults and three for triangular subfaults). This information
defines the location and geometry of all subfaults in thefinite-fault rupture model.
5. For each subfault: index number (defined in item 4), final
slip (computed by integrating the local slip-rate function
defined in item 6), rise time (slip duration), and ruptureonset time (if applicable).

Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/87/3/712/2771971/712.pdf
by King Abdullah Univ of Sci Tech Librarian of Kaust user

Volume 87, Number 3 May/June 2016713

6. For each subfault: index number (defined in item 4), sliprate function (slip velocity versus time, relative to hypocentral origin time or to a specified absolute referencetime), as used in generating the predicted time series. The
instantaneous rake angle should also be included if it isallowed to vary in the inversion.
7. Total seismic moment. If the shear-modulus varies overthe fault, potency should be reported.
8. *Any other key parameters that the author(s) consider
important for understanding their model and ensuring reproducibility. These can be documented in the form of an electronic supplement to the journal publication, containing any
additional material, descriptions, links to webpages, references, and related documentation that supports the publishedfinite-fault rupture model. Detailed processing and data
analysis steps taken to generate the results (see the Method
Documentation section) and not specified in the journal
publication can be reported here. Such an electronic supplement can be made available by various means of openly accessible electronic-data dissemination and storage (website, filetransfer protocol [FTP] server, and community database).
Although the above list provides an adequate documentation
for most finite-fault inversions, we make the following
remarks for further explanations and regarding additional information:
1. For offshore events, the water depth should be specified,
and whether depths of the hypocenter, subfaults, and soon, are given relative to the water surface or to the seafloor.
2. For teleseismic waves, attenuation parameters (e.g., t  values) should be provided for phases used in the inversion.
3. For 3D models or station-specific models, an average 1Dmodel and a general description of the 3D variations should
be provided (a complete description of the 3D model is not
required, but reference must be made to which 3D Earthmodel has been used, ideally with a hyperlink to a downloadsite for the digital version of this model).
4. Items (3) and (4) in the above list “Model Documentation” are listed separately to account for the possibility thatmultiple Green’s functions are computed for the same subfault. The shear modulus is included in item (3) to account for the possibility of 3D variations not fully
included in item (1).
5. Values for latitude, longitude, and depth should be provided with enough significant digits to precisely specify
the fault model.
6. For flat-layered Earth models, latitude and longitude may
be supplemented by spatial sampling (dx and dy) in kilometers relative to a provided reference location (latitude
and longitude), but the author’s best estimate for latitude
and longitude should also be given.
7. Description of any filter applied to the Green’s functions.
8. It needs to be clearly stated whether the source inversion
also solves for the geometry of the rupture surface, any of
its segments, the subfault size and location, or the locationof individual point sources. If yes, the particular inversion
approach needs to be documented. If not, it should be714

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 87, Number 3

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/87/3/712/2771971/712.pdf
by King Abdullah Univ of Sci Tech Librarian of Kaust user

clearly stated which model parameters are assumed fixed,
and which ones are solved for in the inversion.
9. *If the source inversion is done using an unstructured fault
model parameterization (triangular or spectral element
fault meshes), a fault-mesh file could be supplied. A possible format is as follows:• Line 1: three integers: number of subfaults (NF), number of vertices per element (NV  3 or 4), total numberof vertices (NTOT).
• Next NTOT lines, one per vertex: vertex unique id, latitude, longitude, and depth (one integer and three reals).
• Next NF lines, one per subfault: subfault unique id, idsof the vertices of current subfault (1  NV integers).
A significant part of the information listed above can be provided through existing file formats that represent finite-fault
rupture models. As primary file format, we recommend the
SRCMOD database format (see Data and Resources, Fig. 1).
A more comprehensive format that provides the precise space–time information of the rupture kinematics is the standard rupture format (.srf ) convention proposed by Rob Graves (U.S.
Geological Survey). This format specifies the exact slip-rate history on each point on the fault in three slip directions and isused, for instance, by the ground-motion simulation platformof the Southern California Earthquake Center. The detailed
format description can be found in Data and Resources.
Data Documentation
In this section, a detailed description should be given of thevarious data (and, if applicable, data covariances) that has beenused in the finite-fault inversion. In particular,
For seismic data and related processing
1. list all seismic phases modeled (e.g., P, S, R1 , W phase, etc.);
2. list seismic stations used, with the following informationfor each;• station name, channel code, and component(s);• station location (latitude, longitude, and elevation);• specify displacement, velocity, or acceleration;• sample rate;• filter band, if data are filtered, and filter parameters(causal, acausal, etc.);• *list of seismic phases and components modeled for thestation, if different from what is given in item (1)above; and• *relative station and/or phase weighting coefficients
3. in case an empirical Green’s function approach is used, access to raw and processed data should be facilitated, alongwith the item (2) and its subitems above.
For geodetic data
1. list of continuous GPS stations used and related processing:• station location (latitude, longitude, and elevation);• source of time;• sample rate;• filter band, if data are filtered; and• who processed the data and when? Which processing
software used? Date of data download for the particular study?;
May/June 2016

(a)

(b)

(c)

▴ Figure 1. The proposed finite-fault rupture model documentation. (a) List of overall earthquake source parameters, as well as metadata
and information related to the inversion parameterization. (b) Documentation (abbreviated here) of the kinematic source parameters foreach subfault, grouped into the three major segments of the fault model shown in (c). Subfault locations are given in latitude, longitude,
and depth coordinates, as well as in a local Cartesian coordinate system with origin at the epicenter. The reference point for eachsubfault as well as each segment is its top center. (c) Graphical representation of the finite-fault-slip distribution described above(a and b). The star marks the hypocenter. For further details of the SRCMOD file format, please see Data and Resources.

Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/87/3/712/2771971/712.pdf
by King Abdullah Univ of Sci Tech Librarian of Kaust user

Volume 87, Number 3 May/June 2016715

2. list of campaign-mode GPS stations used and related
processing:• station location (latitude, longitude, and elevation);• source of time series; and• who processed the data and when? Which processing
software used? Date of data download for the particular study?
3. list of Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR)
images used and related processing:• (latitude and longitude) of the four corner of the study
region, and the respective InSAR scenes;• satellite type/mission and recording band;• date/time of recording and processing the InSAR scenes;• who processed the data and when? Which processing
software used? Which processing steps were applied (e.g.,interferogram filtering, ramp removal, topography removal, atmospheric corrections, phase unwrapping, ambiguity estimation across ruptures, subsampling, etc.); and• if the used InSAR data are spatially subsampled before
inversion, the resulting location of subsampled pixels andcorresponding surface displacements should be specified.
For tsunami data and related processing
1. list of stations used:• station location (latitude, longitude, and elevation
or depth);• specify instrument type (tide gauge, buoy, satellite,etc.), and data type (e.g., water height, pressure, etc.);• sample rate; and• filter band/processing applied (e.g., tide correction
method).
Parameters common to all stations can be given once, thatis, they do not need to be listed separately for each station (e.g.,sample rate, filter band, etc.).
In addition to the above recommendations, we urge theauthors to provide:• pointers (hyperlinks) to download sites where the raw data
can be retrieved and• access to the processed data as used in the inversion,
through an electronic supplement or via a dedicated website
or FTP server. If the data are not in a standard format, a
description of the data format should be provided. This also
applies to time-series data. Ideally, both data and model-predicted synthetics are supplied to facilitate the subsequent
analysis and reproducibility.
Method Documentation
It is imperative to provide detailed descriptions of the methods
for forward calculations, data processing, and data inversion
that have been applied during the finite-fault inversion. Specifically, the following information should be provided:
1. Method used to compute the Green’s functions:• reference(s) to the method;• if a publically available Green’s function code was used,provide its version and a method to obtain it (e.g., alink to download it);716

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 87, Number 3

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/87/3/712/2771971/712.pdf
by King Abdullah Univ of Sci Tech Librarian of Kaust user

• if the authors developed their own code based on the givenreference, describe how the method was implemented;• describe any original modifications of the method thatwere introduced; and• if the applied code is not open source, provide theGreen’s functions that were used in the study
2. Documentation of data-processing schemes, for example,
specifying any data corrections, filtering, downsampling,
and related parameters applied to the original recorded observations to generate the actual data used in the inversion.
3. General description of the inversion approach used, including definition of cost/misfit function, norms used,
any applied smoothing/regularization, as well as any Bayesian priors. The particular choice of the priors should bejustified, and information should be provided on how thefinal (optimal) smoothing/regularization parameters wereselected.
4. Information on the data misfit for the preferred model.
For joint inversions, ideally this would include separate
misfit numbers for the different data types (e.g., seismic,
geodetic, tsunami, etc.) and how the different data types
were weighted in the inversion. A justification for the applied weighting scheme must be provided as well.

SUMMARY
The seismological community has been a forerunner in open
global data exchange for decades, for instance through the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) DataManagement System and regional and international efforts
also providing freely accessible seismic and earthquake data.
Open and ready access to high-level seismological data products, such as tomographic Earth models or finite-fault rupture
models, still has much room for expansion. This requires accessto relevant documentation of the scientific workflow, fromoriginal signals to modeling/inversion procedures to the final
research results that can be used for further investigations.
Here, we propose a combined documentation and formatting
scheme for documenting finite-fault earthquake source inversions and the resulting kinematic rupture models. We envisionthat if the community embraces this approach it will facilitate
reproducibility as well as interoperability of the models acrossthe seismology and earthquake-engineering community. An
agreed-upon scheme for documenting finite-fault source inversions is also a necessary step for developing new approaches for
rigorous uncertainty quantification (e.g., Beresnev, 2003; Pageet al., 2011; Mai et al., 2016). However, the proposed scheme is
only a first step to promote common source-modeling reporting standards to foster a culture of sharing these models (andrelated data and information) for future research. As the seismological communities (and other scientific communities)
gather experience with the proposed formats, we anticipate updates and modification to satisfy additional requirements andapplications.
Finite-fault rupture models for large and great global earthquakes have a wide range of applications for subsequent research
May/June 2016to understand earthquake source processes and seismotectonics,
and are also of great use for seismic-hazard research applications.
As inversion methods become more sophisticated, real-time data
is increasingly available, and computer capabilities are enhanced,
we see growing numbers of finite-fault rupture models for agiven earthquake being generated by many scientific teams(often in near-real time). This motivates progressing beyond
simple graphical comparisons of these rupture models, to quantitative assessments of the quality and robustness of the models.
There is value in using well-defined statistical metrics to understand the similarities and discrepancies between these rupture
models (Gallovič and Ampuero, 2015; Razafindrakoto et al.,2015; Zhang et al., 2015). For example, one approach is to run
a posteriori forward simulations for proposed source-model solutions on a common dataset to assess the data-prediction capabilities for cross validation. Given that advanced computing will
be increasingly used to deal with many, potentially very large,
rupture-model datasets, it may also be necessary to move soonfrom ASCII-formatted earthquake-source representations tocommonly used binary formats (HDF5 and NetCDF) for
which standardized input/output-libraries exist. This type of forward-looking scientific cooperation and integration (potentiallymoving to community-consensus representations of the faulting
process for critical events) can only be achieved after implementing clearly defined standards, formats, and protocols for documenting and disseminating our research. Our anticipation is that
researchers quickly adopt the proposed documentation format,
whereas at the same time journal editors require that authors
follow these guidelines. We also encourage authors to supply
their finite-fault rupture models to an online repository (e.g., the
SRCMOD database, Mai and Thingbaijam, 2014) that checks
the validity of the provided rupture-model data and associatedinformation. Finally, it is important to first promote a culture ofmaking these models (and related data and documentation)
easily available for further research, before attempting to finalize
all the details of what ultimately should be provided.

DATA AND RESOURCES
The finite-fault rupture model and associated data-formatting description (shown in Fig. 1) are extracted from the SRCMOD database (http://equake‑rc.info/SRCMOD/fileformats/fsp andhttp://equake-rc.info/srcmod, last accessed December 2015).
The detailed format description can be found in http://equake-rc.info/static/publish/paper/SRF-Description-Graves_2.0.pdf.
Stanford Exploration Project can be found in http://sepwww.
stanford.edu/doku.php. The unpublished manuscript by K. K.
S. Thingbaijam and P. M. Mai (2016), “Evidence 1 for truncatedexponential probability distribution of earthquake slip”, submitted
for publication to Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Rob Graves (U.S. Geological Survey[USGS]) for supporting our efforts by making his standardrupture-format (.srf ) openly available. Comments by M. vanDriel, F. Pollitz, R. Okuwaki, Y. Yagi, and O. Zielke helped
to refine and clarify the formatting requirements when using
the .srf convention for computing synthetic seismograms atteleseismic distances. S. Jónsson helped to define Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data requirements. We
thank the two reviewers, J. Murray and T. Iwata, for their valuable comments and constructive criticism. Their feedback
helped to improve not only the manuscript, but also the proposed data and metadata documentation. This research was
supported by the Southern California Earthquake Center(SCEC). SCEC is funded by National Science Foundation(NSF) Cooperative Agreement EAR-1033462 and USGS Cooperative Agreement G12AC20038. The SCEC Contribution
Number for this article is 2107. The research presented in thisarticle is supported by the Division of Physical Sciences andEngineering, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).

REFERENCES
Agnew, D. C. (2012). AGU journals should ask authors to publish results,
Eos Trans. AGU 93, no. 29, 266.
Agnew, D. C. (2013). Realistic simulations of geodetic network data; theFakenet package, Seismol. Res. Lett. 84, 426–432.
Beresnev, I. A. (2003). Uncertainties in finite-fault slip inversions: To
what extent to believe? (A critical review), Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 93, 2445–2458.
Causse, M., F. Cotton, and P. M. Mai (2010). Constraining the roughness
degree of slip heterogeneity, J. Geophys. Res. 115, no. B05304, doi:
10.1029/2009JB006747.
Causse, M., L. A. Dalguer, and P. M. Mai (2013). Variability of dynamic
source parameters inferred from kinematic models of past earthquakes, Geophys. J. Int. 196, 1754–1769, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt478.
Eddy, D. M., W. Hollingworth, J. J. Caro, J. Tsevat, K. M. McDonald, andJ. B. Wong (2012). Model transparency and validation: A report of
the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-7,
Med. Decis. Making 32, 733–743.
Ergintav, S., S. McClusky, E. Hearn, R. Reilinger, R. Cakmak, T. Herring,
H. Ozener, O. Lenk, and E. Tari (2009). Seven years of postseismic
deformation following the 1999, M  7:4 and M  7:2, IzmitDüzce, Turkey earthquake sequence, J. Geophys. Res. 114,
no. B07403, doi: 10.1029/2008JB006021.
Gabriel, A.-A., J.-P. Ampuero, L. A. Dalguer, and P. M. Mai (2012). The
transition of dynamic rupture styles in elastic media under velocityweakening friction, J. Geophys. Res. 117, no. B09311, doi: 10.1029/
2012JB009468.
Gallovič, F., and J.-P. Ampuero (2015). A new strategy to compare inverted rupture models exploiting the Eigen-structure of the inverse
problem, Seismol. Res. Lett. 86, 1679–1689.
Haak, L. L., D. Baker, D. K. Ginther, G. J. Gordon, M. A. Probus, N.
Kannankutty, and B. A. Weinberg (2012). Standards and infrastructure for innovation data exchange, Science 338, no. 6104, 196–197,
doi: 10.1126/science.1221840.
Hanson, B., A. Sugden, and B. Alberts (2011). Making data maximallyavailable, Science 331, no. 6018, 649, doi: 10.1126/science.1203354.
Heaton, T. H. (1990). Evidence for and implications of self-healing pulsesof slip in earthquake rupture, Phys. Earth Planet. In. 64, 1–20.
Ide, S., and M. Takeo (1997). Determination of constitutive relations offault slip based on seismic waves analysis, J. Geophys. Res. 102,
27,379–27,391.
Lavallée, D., P. Liu, and R. J. Archuleta (2006). Stochastic model ofheterogeneity in earthquake slip spatial distributions, Geophys. J.
Int. 165, 622–640.

Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/87/3/712/2771971/712.pdf
by King Abdullah Univ of Sci Tech Librarian of Kaust user

Volume 87, Number 3 May/June 2016717

Lees, J. M. (2012). Open and free: Software and scientific reproducibility,
Seismol. Res. Lett. 83, no. 5, 751–752, doi: 10.1785/0220120091.
Mai, P. M., and G. C. Beroza (2000). Source-scaling properties fromfinite-fault rupture models, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, 604–615.
Mai, P. M., and G. C. Beroza (2002). A spatial random-field model tocharacterize complexity in earthquake slip, J. Geophys. Res. 107,
no. B11, 2308, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000588.
Mai, P. M., and K. K. S. Thingbaijam (2014). SRCMOD: An online
database of finite source rupture models, Seismol. Res. Lett. 85,
no. 6, 1348–1357, doi: 10.1785/0220140077.
Mai, P. M., D. Schorlemmer, M. Page, J.-P. Ampuero, K. Asano, M.
Causse, S. Custodio, W. Fan, G. Festa, M. Galis, et al. (2016).
The earthquake-source inversion validation (SIV) project, Seismol.
Res. Lett. 87, no. 3, doi: 10.1785/0220150231.
Mai, P. M., P. Somerville, A. Pitarka, L. Dalguer, H. Miyake, G. Beroza,
S.-G. Song, and K. Irikura (2006). On scaling of fracture energy andstress drop in dynamic rupture models: Consequences for nearsource ground-motions, in Earthquakes: Radiated Energy and the
Physics of Faulting, R. Abercrombie, A. McGarr, G. Di Toro,and H. Kanamori (Editors), Vol. 170, American GeophysicalUnion, Washington, D. C., 283–294.
Mai, P. M, P. Spudich, and J. Boatwright (2005). Hypocenter locations infinite-source rupture models, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, 965–980.
Manighetti, I., M. Campillo, C. Sammis, P. M. Mai, and G. King (2005).
Evidence for self-similar, triangular slip distributions on earthquakes: Implications for earthquake and fault mechanics, J. Geophys.
Res. 110, no. B05302, doi: 10.1029/2004JB003174.
Mesirov, J. P. (2010). Accessible reproducible research, Science 327,
no. 5964, 415–416, doi: 10.1126/science.1179653.
Page, M., P. M. Mai, and D. Schorlemmer (2011). Testing earthquake
source inversion methodologies, Eos Trans. AGU 92, no. 9, 75.
Peng, R. D. (2011). Reproducible research in computational science,
Science 334, no. 6060, 1226–1227, doi: 10.1126/science.1213847.
Razafindrakoto, H. N. T, P. M. Mai, M. G. Genton, L. Zhang, and K. K.
S. Thingbaijam (2015). Quantifying variability in earthquake rupture models using multidimensional scaling: Application to the 2011
Tohoku earthquake, Geophys. J. Int. 202, 17–40, doi: 10.1093/
gji/ggv088.
Schwab, M., M. Karrenbach, and J. Claerbout (2000). Making scientificcomputations reproducible, Comput. Sci. Eng. 2, no. 6, 61–67.
Shearer, P. M., and R. Bürgmann (2010). Lessons learned from the 2004
Sumatra–Andaman megathrust rupture, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet.
Sci. 38, 103–131, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152537.
Somerville, P., K. Irikura, R. Graves, S. Sawada, D. Wald, N. Abrahamson,
Y. Iwasaki, T. Kagawa, N. Smith, and A. Kowada (1999). Character-

718

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 87, Number 3

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/87/3/712/2771971/712.pdf
by King Abdullah Univ of Sci Tech Librarian of Kaust user

izing crustal earthquake slip models for the prediction of strong
ground motion, Seismol. Res. Lett. 70, 59–80.
Stein, R. S. (2003). Earthquake conversations, Sci. Am. 288, 72–79.
Strasser, F. O., M. C. Arango, and J. J. Bommer (2010). Scaling of thesource dimensions of interface and intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with moment magnitude. Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, 941–950.
Tinti, E., P. Spudich, and M. Cocco (2005). Earthquake fracture energy
inferred from kinematic rupture models on extended faults,
J. Geophys. Res. 110, no. B12303, doi: 10.1029/2005JB003644.
Zhang, L., P. M. Mai, K. K. S. Thingbaijam, H. N. Razafindrakoto, and
M. Genton (2015). Comparing earthquake slip models with the
Spatial Prediction Comparison Test, Geophys. J. Int. 200, no. 1,
185–198, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu383.

P. Martin Mai
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering
Thuwal 23955-6900, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
martin.mai@kaust.edu.saPeter Shearer
University of California, San Diego
IGPP 0225
La Jolla, California 92093 U.S.A.
Jean-Paul Ampuero
California Institute of Technology
Seismological Laboratory
1200 East California Boulevard, MC 252-21
Pasadena, California 91125 U.S.A.
Thorne Lay
University of California Santa Cruz
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, California 95064 U.S.A.
Published Online 6 April 2016

May/June 2016